Update Epic

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses that the optimistic-concurrency version field is handled automatically, a behavioral nuance not covered by the annotations. It also clarifies partial patch semantics, ensuring omitted fields remain unchanged. These details add value beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), though it doesn't describe response formats or error cases.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the verb+resource, and every sentence earns its place. The partial patch guideline and version note are essential, and there is no wasted or redundant wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context for an update operation: it explains the patch semantics and the auto-handled version field. It could have mentioned expected return values or error conditions, but the annotations and partial patch description cover the essential behavioral aspects well.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With schema description coverage at 33%, the description compensates by explaining the overall patch behavior: only include fields to change. This gives semantic meaning to all optional parameters without listing each one. It also adds the negative instruction about the version field, which is helpful. However, it doesn't detail individual parameter formats beyond what the schema already provides for watchers and assigned_to.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Update an existing epic', a specific verb + resource that clearly states the tool's function. It immediately distinguishes itself from sibling tools like epic_create and epic_delete by focusing on updating an existing object.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description specifies 'partial patch — only include the fields you want to change', giving clear guidance on how to use the parameters. It also instructs the user not to pass the version field. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like epic_create for new epics, so it falls short of a 5 for explicit when/when-not guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.